Schleining v. Potts Law
1:25-cv-00056
D. Mont.May 13, 2025Background
- Chad Michael Schleining, representing himself, filed a complaint against Potts Law PLLC and its attorney Adrianna Potts, alleging a scheme to fraudulently deny him workers compensation benefits related to a coal mine injury.
- Schleining sought to proceed in forma pauperis, asserting he lacked resources to pay filing fees, which the court granted.
- The complaint was brought under federal criminal statutes: wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)).
- Schleining also moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent defendants from contacting or harassing him or disrupting his benefits.
- The court evaluated the sufficiency of the complaint under the standards of dismissal for cases filed in forma pauperis (28 U.S.C. § 1915) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The court found the complaint failed to state a valid claim but granted Schleining leave to amend within 30 days, noting the potential to cure deficiencies if filed under the correct statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schleining can bring civil claims under federal criminal statutes | Schleining alleges defendant committed wire fraud, conspiracy, and witness tampering against him | Not specified (Defendant took no position yet; issue evaluated on pleadings) | No private right of action exists under these statutes; motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend |
| Sufficiency of the complaint's factual allegations under Rule 8 & plausibility standard | Schleining asserts he was defrauded out of workers comp by defendant's actions | Not specified | Complaint does not state a plausible claim; must be amended to comply with Rule 8 |
| Granting in forma pauperis status | Schleining claims inability to pay filing fee | Not opposed | Granted, fee waived |
| Motion for Temporary Restraining Order | Schleining seeks to prohibit defendant contact and interference with benefits | Not addressed | Denied as moot pending proper amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (Complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Complaint must state grounds for relief that are plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Plausibility requires factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (Statutory language must show intent to create private right of action)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (Leave to amend is liberally granted to pro se litigants)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (Failure to comply with court orders may justify dismissal)